Criticizing Hare language approach for generic data structures

Post by ddevault » Wed, May 04, 2022, 12:58 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #87

ddevault wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the assertion that Hare's standard library is "anemic"; it includes a pretty decent set of batteries for many use-cases: https://docs.harelang.org Many Hare programs will not need to have dependencies at all. We encourage a more conservative approach to dependencies than is common in many modern languages such as Cargo, PyPI, npm, Go, etc. Even dependency-heavy Hare projects will not have hundreds of depen…

That does look like a decent collection of functionality, but a HashMap as mentioned in the submission seems like a pretty glaring omission. I can't remember the last time I wrote a program that didn't use a Map. Even dynamic languages that tend to be quite light on types almost universally include a map type. I can definitely see the problems with the Node "explosion of modules" approach, but if we're looking at fix…

Post by gradschool » Wed, May 04, 2022, 1:00 PM UTC

eatonphil wrote: post #60

gradschool wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a mature open source library for them packaged for Arch and other distros. Using that would be less work than trying to implement it from scratch.

Are you suggesting there aren't mature implementations of hash maps in C you can easily vendor?

Post by nicoburns » Wed, May 04, 2022, 1:03 PM UTC

mh7 wrote: post #68

nynx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the embedded world, it’s becoming less justifiable to use C when your platform supports rust.

rust doesn't offer much value for embedded (mcu, bare metal, tiny stuff) imo. No allocation = no leaks, no use after free, no dangling pointers. No multi core = no atomics or concurrency to worry about. Ring buffers solve 99% of my interrupt data sharing = no need to worry about synchronization. Bounds/safety checks? Need to run and test release builds most of the time because of space/memory constraints.

Post by capableweb » Wed, May 04, 2022, 1:04 PM UTC

xigoi wrote: post #94

capableweb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hare doesn't say "we need no package manager" but instead "we don't need a new package manager, use the one your OS provides", at least from how I understand it.

That's a great way to make a program work only on specific distros.

Post by _trackno5 » Wed, May 04, 2022, 1:08 PM UTC

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #36

_trackno5 wrote: post #27

I don't get this guy. He's just raging. I agree a hashmap is not simple and Hare's post is a bit naive, but I don't get what's his problem with the language not providing a default implementation. It's part of the language's design. It's targeting people that most likely won't need a hash table. It's not aiming to be a high-level batteries-included language like Java.

I think that even the mere fact that there are a billion implementations of a hashmap kind of implies that a hash table _is_ a simple data structure, that you may complicate in a bazillion ways in order to cater for some specific usecase / requeriment. But at it's core, a simple data structure.